This kind of program goes nowhere because it posits a new layer of officialdom affecting what is essentially a creative field. There are already layers of restraint: building and engineering codes, materials supply, money, and collaboration between architect and client. For instance, following WWII, architects and their builders could not obtain government backed loans unless they agreed to use building materials manufactured to new standards, such as the 8 x 4 ft. panel. That's why American cities were soon packed with tall boxes made with standardized materials and 8 foot ceilings. Here's another instance. When Mies designed his famous steel hi-rise pair in Chicago, he wanted to expose the steel stringers on the outside of the building but then discovered he had to cover them with fire-proof foam. So he did and then made fake stringers to keep his visual design concept.
And there are already architectural journals that influence quality, etc. To paraphrase E. Gombrich when he said that there is no art, only artists, we can say, there is no architecture, only architects. To which we may add: Everything else is mediated by others. WC ________________________________ From: Frances Kelly <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 7:36:04 PM Subject: RE: Architecture and Philosophy: Review Frances to interested members... To help realize whether any theory of architecture can be framed, be the global theory only general or special or universal, it seems to me that what may be needed from academy and industry sources is a method of assaying and assessing and essaying the field of architecture that is based on the science of review. Such a science would use the means of critical logic and analytic philosophy to address the tendency and activity and theory of architecture. The science of review as posited by pragmatism is deemed to be used mainly in addressing the arena of science, whether the sciences are theoretical or practical or of review, but it is also indeed deemed to be used in addressing such other arenas as tech and philosophy and art and religion. The reviews are typically culled by peers from the consensus of agreed opinions that learned experts may have within the collective community of their interest. The findings of the reviews are then published for further evaluation, and then archived for any future research or resource. All exploratory discussions leading to any fundamental opinions would precede the reviews, thereby affording a degree of freedom and flexibility before the eventual reviews are posited. It seems to me that the field of architecture should be made prone to this very act of review. If a theory of architecture might emerge from this activity, then so much the better for architecture.
